Tax Credits

Nigel Dodds: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Northern Ireland have been awarded tax credits who had income of (a) £10,000 to £19,999, (b) £20,000 to £29,999, (c) £30,000 to £39,999 and (d) £40,000 to £50,000.

Dawn Primarolo: Final income data are currently available only for 2003–04. Table 2.9 of "Child and Working Tax Credits Statistics. Finalised awards. 2003–04" shows the average, taken over 2003–04, of the number of in-work families in each band of income used to calculate tax credit entitlement and with positive finalised 2003–04 awards. This document can be found at www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/cwtc-annual-0304.pdf. The figures for Northern Ireland appear in the following table:
	
		Thousand
		
			   Income level Average number of in-work families in Northern Ireland in each band of income 
		
		
			 Under £10,000 40 
			 £10,000 to £19,999 32 
			 £20,000 to £29,999 31 
			 £30,000 to £39,999 21 
			 £40,000 to £50,000 10 
			 Over £50,000 3 
			 Total 137 
		
	
	Note:
	Figures are based on a sample of cases, and subject to sampling uncertainty. Some families were not required to report their 2003–04 incomes unless it could make a difference to the value of their award. Others failed to report these incomes. All families not reporting 2003–04 incomes appear in the table according to their 2001–02 incomes.

Income Statistics

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the income per head in the Peterborough constituency was in each of the last five years.

Dawn Primarolo: Information on the mean and median of total income by constituency can be found in table 3.15 "Total Income by Parliamentary Constituency" on the HM Revenue and Customs internet website. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_distribution/menu-by-year.htm#315.
	The information is available only for 2002–03 and 2003–04.

Population (West Lancashire)

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the most recent population figures provided by the Office for National Statistics for West Lancashire.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 27 February 2006
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question about what assessment of the accuracy of the most recent population figures provided by the Office for National Statistics has been made for West Lancashire. (52777)
	Population estimates are calculated using an internationally respected methodology. Further information can be found in the detailed methodology guide "Making a population estimate in England and Wales'. This is published here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product,asp?vlnk=575
	It is becoming increasingly difficult to estimate the size of the population because of changes in society, which include increased mobility and different living arrangements. The decennial Census provides a benchmark against which national and sub-national population estimates can be assessed. Substantial work has been done on the difference between mid-year population estimates and the 2001 Census. This work is summarised in the final report of the 2004 Local Authority Population Studies, which can be found here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdf
	These studies confirmed that the 2001 Census had worked well in most areas, including West Lancashire, but there were a few cases where the adjustment for under-enumeration was not able to adjust sufficiently for exceptional circumstances. This work, together with revised international migration estimates, accounted for a large proportion of the initial 1.1 million difference between mid year estimates and the Census; reducing the difference to a little over 0.2 million
	In addition, extensive annual quality assurance is undertaken in order to ensure the accuracy of the annual mid-year estimates. Quality assurance starts with detailed checking of the source data used in the components of change (birth, deaths, etc.). Procedures are then in place to ensure that these data sources are correctly processed when deriving the estimates. The calculated national and sub-national estimates, for all 376 local authorities in England and Wales, are then subject to a further set of quality assurance procedures before they are published. These procedures include reviews of sex ratios and age profiles, comparisons of change over time, and comparisons of fertility and mortality rates. Substantial effort has already been undertaken, in recent years, to improve the quality assurance of population estimates.
	ONS is also now investing substantially in a project to Improve Migration and Population Statistics (IMPS). (More information on this project can be found at: www-statistics.gov.uk/IMPS). The key aims of this project are to reduce the size of the difference between the 2011 Census results and the mid-year estimates and to better understand any difference that does remain. As part of this project, we are developing a data comparator tool to enable us to compare the annual mid-year estimates against a range of administrative sources. This work is ongoing and the results will inform our understanding of the accuracy of the mid-year population estimates. The tool was trialled in the mid-2004 population estimates, which were published in August 2005.
	Another strand of the IMPS project is a review of the quality assurance procedures that are currently in place for population estimates. One of the aims of this review is to assess what improvements can be made to existing procedures, and determine whether additional quality assurance is required.
	ONS also produces population projections for each local authority area. The methodology used in the production of the subnational population projections is an established and recognised methodology. Subnational population projections undergo extensive quality assurance before publication. In addition, local authorities and health authorities are consulted on the first year of migration assumptions used as the baseline trend for migration.
	Population estimates and projections are supplied to the QDPM, I understand that ODPM make checks to ensure that the data as provided by the ONS have been correctly entered into their calculations for allocating Formula Grant to local authorities. Otherwise, they do not make any assessment of accuracy of the data supplied, as this responsibility lies with the ONS.

Taxpayers

Mark Lancaster: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Milton Keynes paid (a) income tax and (b) the top rate of income tax in each of the last eight years.

Dawn Primarolo: Information on the number of taxpayers by unitary authority and by constituency can be found in tables 3.14 "Total income by borough and district or unitary authority" and 3.15 "Total Income by Parliamentary Constituency" on the HM Revenue and Customs internet website. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_distribution/menu-by-year.htm#315.
	Information on the number of taxpayers by unitary authority is available for the years 1999–2000 to 2003–04 while similar information by constituency is available for the years 2002–03 and 2003–04 only.
	A breakdown by tax bands is not available because the sample sizes for marginal rates at these levels of geography are very small and demonstrate a large variability year on year.

Lifelong Learning

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in introducing a new accountability system for (a) funding, (b) planning, (c) monitoring, (d) audit and (e) inspection arrangements for (i) colleges and (ii) other educational providers in the lifelong learning sector.

Bill Rammell: The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has a statutory responsibility to plan and fund high quality education and training to deliver Government's priorities and targets for post-16 learning and skills. The LSC's "agenda for change" published in August 2005 set out proposals for a programme of radical transformation in response to the challenge of developing an effective, efficient and dynamic learning and skills sector. Their proposals, including those for simplifying funding and streamlining data collection and monitoring, have been well received by colleges and other providers in the sector. We have made significant progress by reducing the audit burden on colleges through abolishing the detailed end-year funding claim and reconciliation for most institutions. In addition, the inspectorates introduced a lighter touch inspection regime last year which will further reduce bureaucracy for providers. Building on "Success for All" and responding to the challenges set out by Sir Andrew Foster in "Realising the Potential" the Government will soon be publishing their own proposals for reforming the sector.

Sure Start

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of changes in the Foundation Stage Profile results for Sure Start Local Programme areas in the last three years.

Beverley Hughes: At the end of each school year (beginning in 2003) my Department collects the Foundation Stage Profile results from each of the 150 English local authorities. Using postcode data we identify the results of those children living in Sure Start Local Programme Areas.
	Overall national summary data for FSP was first published in 2003 as 'Experimental Statistics' and in 2004 as 'National Statistics'. However, a background of ongoing improvements to teacher assessment and moderation make it very difficult to draw meaningful statistical judgements about the progress made in Sure Start areas in the last three years. The dataset for 2005 is not strictly comparable with the results in earlier years. My Department considers that the 2005 figures represent the most robust baseline against which progress in Sure Start areas can be effectively monitored. The figures for 2005 are shown in the tables.
	
		Percentage of children achieving each scale score in the 13 assessment scales of the Foundation Stage Profile in all areas in England(2), 2005
		
			  Number of points achieved (percentage)(3) 
			 All children 0(4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
		
		
			 PSE: DA 0 0 0 1 2 7 11 20 
			 PSE: SD 0 0 1 3 4 9 21 15 
			 PSE: ED 0 1 2 3 5 8 11 17 
			 CLL: LCT 0 1 2 3 5 8 16 19 
			 CLL: LSL 1 2 4 10 10 11 12 18 
			 CLL: R 0 1 3 3 8 13 15 20 
			 CLL: W 1 3 5 8 10 14 16 16 
			 MAT: NLC 0 1 1 2 4 5 6 29 
			 MAT: C 1 2 4 5 7 9 13 22 
			 MAT: SSM 1 1 2 3 4 7 13 28 
			 KUW 0 1 2 3 5 8 13 20 
			 PD 0 0 1 2 2 4 9 21 
			 CD 0 1 1 2 4 10 16 22 
		
	
	
		
			  Number of points achieved (percentage)(3) 
			 All children 8 9 1–3(5) 4–7(6) 8–9(7) Number (thousand) Six or more(8) 
		
		
			 PSE: DA 36 23 2 39 59 553.9 90 
			 PSE: SD 26 21 4 49 47 553.8 83 
			 PSE: ED 33 19 6 42 52 553.9 81 
			 CLL: LCT 29 18 6 47 47 553.8 81 
			 CLL: LSL 16 17 16 50 33 553.6 63 
			 CLL: R 24 12 7 56 36 553.8 72 
			 CLL: W 20 9 15 56 29 553.7 61 
			 MAT: NLC 28 24 3 44 52 553.8 87 
			 MAT: C 26 11 10 51 38 553.5 73 
			 MAT: SSM 27 16 5 51 43 553.7 84 
			 KUW 39 8 6 47 47 553.8 81 
			 PD 43 18 3 37 60 553.8 90 
			 CD 33 11 3 53 43 553.8 81 
		
	
	
		Percentage of children achieving each scale score in the 13 assessment scale of the Foundation Stage Profile in Sure Start areas in England(2), 2005
		
			  Number of points achieved (percentage)(3) 
			 All children 0(4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
		
		
			 PSE: DA 0 0 1 1 3 9 13 21 
			 PSE: SD 0 0 1 4 6 12 25 15 
			 PSE: ED 0 2 3 4 7 11 13 18 
			 CLL: LCT 1 1 3 4 7 11 18 18 
			 CLL: LSL 1 4 6 14 12 12 12 16 
			 CLL: R 0 2 4 6 11 16 17 19 
			 CLL: W 1 4 7 11 12 15 16 14 
			 MAT: NLC 1 1 2 3 5 7 8 31 
			 MAT: C 2 2 7 7 9 12 14 20 
			 MAT: SSM 1 2 3 4 6 9 16 27 
			 KUW 0 2 3 6 8 11 15 20 
			 PD 0 1 1 2 4 6 11 25 
			 CD 1 1 2 3 7 14 18 22 
		
	
	
		
			  Number of points achieved (percentage)(3) 
			 All children 8 9 1–3(5) 4–7(6) 8–9(7) Number (thousand) Six or more(8) 
		
		
			 PSE: DA 34 17 2 46 51 84.1 85 
			 PSE: SD 21 15 5 58 37 84.1 76 
			 PSE: ED 28 14 8 49 42 84.1 73 
			 CLL: LCT 24 13 9 53 37 84.1 73 
			 CLL: LSL 12 11 24 52 23 84.0 51 
			 CLL: R 17 7 11 63 25 84.1 61 
			 CLL: W 15 6 22 57 20 84.1 51 
			 MAT: NLC 24 18 6 52 42 84.1 81 
			 MAT: C 20 7 16 55 28 84.0 62 
			 MAT: SSM 22 11 8 58 33 84.0 76 
			 KUW 31 5 10 54 36 84.1 71 
			 PD 37 13 4 46 50 84.1 86 
			 CD 25 7 6 61 33 84.1 73 
		
	
	(2) Aggregation of LEA level results.
	(3) The number of points achieved does not necessarily represent a straight progression through the scale. For example, 11 per cent. of children in all areas achieved 6 points in PSE: DA. This does not mean that they have necessarily achieved all the points from 1–6 as it is possible they could have achieved, for example, point 7 but not point 3.
	(4) A scale score of 0 indicates where it has not been possible to record an assessment.
	(5) A scale score of 1–3 indicates working towards the Early Learning Goals.
	(6) A scale score of 4–7 indicates working within the Early Learning Goals.
	(7) A scale score of 8–9 indicates achieving all of, or working beyond the Early Learning Goals.
	(8) A scale score of 6 or more indicates working securely within the Early Learning Goals.
	Key:
	PSE: DA—Personal, social and emotional development: Dispositions and attitudes
	PSE: SD—Personal, social and emotional development: Social development
	PSE: ED—Personal, social and emotional development: Emotional development
	CLL: LCT—Communication, language and literacy: Language for communication and thinking
	CLL: LSL—Communication, language and literacy: Linking sounds and letters
	CLL: R—Communication, language and literacy: Reading
	CLL: W—Communication, language and literacy: Writing
	MAT: NLC—Mathematical development: Numbers as labels for counting
	MAT: C—Mathematical development: Calculating
	MAT: SSM—Mathematical development: Shape, space and measures
	KUW—Knowledge and understanding of the world
	PD—Physical development
	CD—Creative development
	Source:
	FSP aggregate dataset
	Our assessment of the available results shows that national movements in attainment over the last three years have also been reflected in Sure Start areas. There does however continue to be a gap in achievement between areas of disadvantage and the national average and this is why £538 million has been made available for capital investment and £487 million for revenue investment in children's centres services, focussing on the most deprived areas.
	The final figures on the Foundation Stage Profile in England were published in Statistical First Release 03/2006 "Foundation Stage Profile 2005: National Results (Final)" on February 16, a copy of which is available on my Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

University Places

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of university places in England have been taken up by pupils from each (a) socioeconomic class and (b) income decile in each year since 1978–79.

Bill Rammell: The available figures on the social background of students obtaining places on full-time undergraduate courses in the UK are shown in the following tables; information on the family income of these students is not held centrally. The figures are limited to students who applied to full-time undergraduate courses via the various application organisations, and they do not therefore cover part-time students nor those full-time students who apply directly to higher education institutions.
	Since 1994, figures have been published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). In previous years, figures were published separately by the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA), which covered applicants to universities funded by the Universities Funding Council (UGC), and the Polytechnics Central Admissions System (PCAS), which covered the polytechnics and higher education colleges. UCAS, UCCA and PCAS all published figures for institutions in the UK, and PCAS did not collect details of social background prior to 1991.
	
		Accepted applicants to universities in the UK by social class
		
			  1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 
		
		
			 Total accepted students 78,939 74,514 72,634 69,631 71,768 
			 of which, percentage from(9):  
			 I Professional 22.6 24.9 24.2 23.6 22.3 
			 II Intermediate 47.3 49.5 49.4 49.0 48.6 
			 IIIN Skilled non-manual 10.7 8.5 8.9 8.7 10.0 
			 IIIM Skilled manual 14.2 12.3 12.3 11.9 12.0 
			 Partly skilled 4.2 3.9 4.3 57 6.0 
			 Unskilled 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
		
	
	
		
			  1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 
		
		
			 Total accepted students 76,181 76,896 78,344 80,496 87,013 
			 of which, percentage from(9):  
			 I Professional 21.0 20.4 20.3 21.0 20.7 
			 II Intermediate 48.1 48.2 48.0 48.1 49.2 
			 IIIN Skilled non-manual 10.4 10.7 11.1 11.0 10.9 
			 IIIM Skilled manual 12.7 12.5 12.9 12.5 12.1 
			 Partly skilled 6.6 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.1 
			 Unskilled 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 
		
	
	
		
			  1990 1991 1992 1993 
		
		
			 Total accepted students 99,377 106,717 117,976 127,476 
			 of which, percentage from(9):   
			 I Professional 19.6 19.3 21.1 20.3 
			 II Intermediate 50.1 50.0 45.7 45.5 
			 IIIN Skilled non-manual 11.0 11.4 11.8 11.9 
			 IIIM Skilled manual 11.9 11.9 13.7 14.6 
			 Partly skilled 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 
			 Unskilled 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.4 
		
	
	(9) Proportions are based on students who provided details of their background, and exclude non-respondents. Between 1980 and 1982, the social class distribution was based on a 10 per cent. sample of students; in later years all students were required to provide the data. Up until 1984 social class was collected only for students with A levels.
	Source:
	Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA).
	
		Accepted applicants to polytechnic and HE colleges in the UK by social class(10)
		
			  1991 1992 1993 
		
		
			 Total accepted students 94,465 125,590 130,596 
			 of which, percentage from(11):
			 I Professional 11.9 13.0 12.3 
			 II Intermediate 45.4 42.2 40.9 
			 IIIN Skilled non-manual 13.0 13.4 13.5 
			 IIIM Skilled manual 17.7 19.9 21.3 
			 Partly skilled 9.7 9.2 9.5 
			 Unskilled 1.8 2.2 2.5 
		
	
	(10) PCAS did not collect social class data prior to 1991.
	(11) Proportions are based on students who provided details of their background, and exclude non-respondents.
	Source:
	Polytechnics Central Admission System (PCAS).
	
		Accepted applicants to higher education institutions in the UK by social class
		
			  1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
		
		
			 Total accepted students 251,292 265,535 268,289 303,318 298,220 303,065 308,718 325,472 
			 of which, percentage from(12): 
			 I Professional 16.2 16.1 16.3 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.5 14.4 
			 II Intermediate 43.6 43.1 43.5 43.7 44.1 43.8 43.8 43.7 
			 IIIN Skilled non-manual 12.8 12.6 13.0 13.9 13.6 13.7 14.1 14.0 
			 IIIM Skilled manual 17.4 17.7 17.0 16.7 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.5 
			 Partly skilled 8.0 8.3 8.2 8.8 8.7 8.8 9.0 8.4 
			 Unskilled 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 
		
	
	(12) Proportions are based on students who provided details of their background, and exclude non-respondents.
	Source:
	Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).
	
		Accepted applicants to higher education institutions in the UK by socio-economic group
		
			  2002 2003 2004 2005 
		
		
			 Total accepted students 331,725 333,942 334,295 360,244 
			 of which, percentage from1: 
			 1. Higher managerial and professional 22.7 22.3 22.2 21.5 
			 2. Lower managerial and professional 30.9 31.1 31.5 31.3 
			 3. Intermediate 15.6 15.2 15.2 15.2 
			 4. Small employers and own account workers 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.4 
			 5. Lower supervisory and technical 4.7 5.0 4.9 4.8 
			 6. Semi-routine 12.8 13.2 13.2 14.0 
			 7. Routine 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.8 
		
	
	(13) Proportions are based on students who provided details of their background, and exclude non-respondents.
	(14) The socio-economic classification was introduced in 2002–03 to replace the social class categories. The socio-economic groupings are not directly comparable to social classes.
	Source:
	Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

University Students

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) of 2 February 2006, Official Report, columns 690–91W, on university students, what percentage of students from socio-economic classes four to seven there were in each higher education institution in the north east in 2003–04.

Bill Rammell: Information for higher education institutions is published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) in the annual publication "Performance Indicators in Higher Education". The latest available figures on the percentage of young full-time first degree entrants from National Statistics—Socio Economic Classes (NS-SEC) 4, 5, 6 and 7 are shown in the table.
	
		Percentage of young full-time first degree entrants from National Statistics—Socio Economic Classes 4–7 at HE institutions in the north east 2003/04
		
			 HE institution Number of young full-time first degree entrants Percentage with known data Percentage from NS-SEC 4–7(15) 
		
		
			 University of Durham 3,480 92.9 15.8 
			 University of Newcastle upon Tyne 3,595 91.6 20.9 
			 University of Northumbria at Newcastle 4,050 82.6 31.2 
			 University of Sunderland 2,355 83.5 39.0 
			 University of Teeside 2,285 77.7 41.4 
		
	
	(15) 4: small employers and own account workers;
	5: lower supervisory and technical occupations;
	6: semi-routine occupations;
	7: routine occupations.
	Source:
	Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) 'Performance Indicators in HE'

Public School Fees

Ian Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the recent statement of objections by the Office of Fair Trading on exchange of information by public schools on fees charged.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Office of Fair Trading is the United Kingdom's independent competition regulator. It has a duty to investigate and address anti-competitive conduct and enforce competition law. It has investigated the exchange of information between independent schools about the fees they charge. Its provisional findings are that 50 schools have breached Chapter One of the Competition Act 1998 which prohibits anti-competitive agreements. This is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading. The Government have no substantive role in individual cases.

Security

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely impact on UK security of future depletion of natural resources; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: The Ministry of Defence continually assesses threats, challenges and opportunities for UK security as part of its planning process.
	Increased competition for limited natural resources is one factor which could contribute to conflict both within and between states. This and other dimensions of the security challenge are dealt with in Chapter 2 of the 2003 Defence White Paper—"Delivering Security in a Changing World" (Cm 6041–1).

Afghanistan

Peter Law: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the merits of the Afghan poppy crop being bought by richer nations and converted into morphine for medical uses; and what assessment his Department has made of alternative agricultural options for Afghan poppy farmers.

Hilary Benn: The Afghan Government has expressed its opposition to licit cultivation of opium. The Afghan Minister for Counter Narcotics, Habibullah Qaderi has said recently:
	"The poor security situation in the country means there can simply be no guarantee that opium will not be smuggled out of the country for the illicit narcotics trade abroad. Without an effective control mechanism, a lot of opium will still be refined into heroin for illicit markets in the west and elsewhere. We could not accept this."
	The UK agrees that licensing opium cultivation in Afghanistan for medical use is not a realistic solution to its drug problem, not least because it risks a high level of diversion of licit opium into illegal channels. The production of opium is also contrary to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
	It is also unlikely that licit Afghan opium would be economically viable as Afghanistan could not compete with countries currently producing licit opium such as Australia, France and Spain. Legalisation is against the approach set out in the Afghan Government's internationally endorsed national drug control strategy. Some progress in reducing illegal cultivation is being made but it will take time and will take even longer if farmers and traffickers believe that the ban on cultivation is open to challenge.
	Agriculture dominates the Afghan economy. Previously Afghanistan was a major exporter of horticulture and livestock products. However, 25 years of war and civil conflict and the recent drought have seriously affected Afghanistan's agriculture sector. Developing this sector is critical for economic growth, poverty reduction and for tackling opium poppy cultivation. Although no other crop can compete with poppy in terms of economic return to farmers, there are several promising and profitable legal alternatives.
	DFID leads the British Government's efforts to develop alternative livelihoods to opium production in Afghanistan. In financial year 2005–06, we are spending over £45 million for this purpose. This is an almost tenfold increase on the amount spent in 2003–04. In financial year 2006–07 spending is expected to continue at similar levels. A proportion of this funding will continue to be specifically targeted on improving agricultural opportunities for Afghan farmers. This includes research to help identify, test and implement new crops and technologies. Examples include improvements in health and husbandry for livestock, apricot drying, honey bee keeping, and the introduction of fruit tree nurseries and greenhouses for vegetable production. DFID has also jointly funded with United States Agency for International Development a $25 million nationwide programme to increase access to seeds and fertiliser for over 500,000 farmers for alternative crops.
	At the same time as developing agricultural opportunities, DFID is also promoting the development of non-farm alternative livelihoods by supporting national programmes of the Government of Afghanistan which are helping to increase access to credit and improve infrastructure for farmers to transport their produce to markets.

Afghanistan

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's activities in Afghanistan.

Hilary Benn: The Department for International Development is working with the Afghan Government and the rest of the international development community to rebuild the country and reduce poverty. DFID has provided over £300 million in bilateral support since September 2001. At the London conference on Afghanistan on 31 January, we committed a further £330 million over the next three years, as part of a wider UK pledge of some £500 million. In addition to this, DFID provides support to Afghanistan through multilateral channels including the European Community, the United Nations and the World Bank.
	Following the launch of the Afghan Government's National Development Framework in April 2002 donors were asked to focus on specific areas of Afghanistan's reconstruction needs. DFID's focus recently has been on building the capacity of the Afghan Government's institutions, supporting better economic management and promoting sustainable livelihoods. The Afghan Government have recently completed their Interim Afghanistan National Development Strategy (IANDS). DFID and other donors are considering how to realign our programmes behind this new strategy.
	Further information on DFID's current programme can be found in the "Interim Strategy for Afghanistan" 2005–06 placed in the Libraries of the House, or on DFID's website at www.dfid.gov.uk/countries/asia/afghanistan.asp

Child Support

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of applications were cleared by the Child Support Agency because (a) a maintenance calculation was made and a payment arrangement put in place, (b) good cause was established and (c) the parent with care was subject to a reduced benefit direction, in each quarter of the last five years for which information is available.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is the matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
	Letter from Stephen Geraghty
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many and what proportion of applications were cleared by the Child Support Agency because (a) a maintenance calculation was made and a payment arrangement put in place (b) good cause was established and (c) the parent with care was subject to a reduced benefit direction in each quarter over the last five years where the information is available.
	Such information as is available is provided in the attached table.
	The attached table shows the number and proportion of old scheme cases that were cleared due to assessments and reduced benefit decisions (RBDs) between July 2001 and March 2003, and also the breakdown requested for new scheme cases between April and December 2005.
	From the available management information, I am not able to say how many old scheme cases were cleared as a result of being identified as claiming good cause, or to provide numbers for the period between April 2003 and March 2005 for the new scheme or for the old scheme from April 2003 to present.
	I hope you find this helpful.
	
		Number and proportion of cases cleared by different methods in each quarter for the period July 2001 to March 2003 and April 2005 to June 2005
		
			  July to September 2001 October to December 2001 January to March 2002 April to June 2002 July to September 2002 October to December 2002 January to March 2003 
		
		
			 Total clearances 92,000 112,000 113,000 96,000 101,000 87,000 81,000 
			 Of which:
			 Assessed 24,000 30,000 31,000 28,000 28,000 24,000 22,000 
			 Assessed (Percentage) 26 26 28 29 28 28 27 
			 
			 RBD 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 
			 RBD (Percentage) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 
			 
			 Other 66,000 80,000 80,000 67,000 72,000 62,000 58,000 
			 Other (Percentage) 71 72 71 70 71 71 71 
		
	
	
		
			  April to June 2005 July to September 2005 October to December 2005 
		
		
			 Total clearances 86,000 81,000 88,000 
			 Of which:
			 Old scheme 9,000 6,000 5,000 
			 New scheme 77,000 75,000 84,000 
			 
			 Of which (new scheme only)
			 Calculation and collection schedule 28,000 29,000 32,000 
			 Calculation and collection schedule (Percentage) 36 39 38 
			 
			 RBD 1,000 1,000 1,000 
			 RBD (Percentage) 2 1 2 
			 
			 Good Cause 2,000 1,000 2,000 
			 Good Cause (Percentage) 2 2 2 
			 
			 Other 46,000 44,000 49,000 
			 Other (Percentage) 60 58 58 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. An old scheme application is defined as cleared if the case is closed or a maintenance assessment has been carried out. In addition, an application is also counted as cleared if the parent with care (PWC) is identified as claiming good cause or the PWC is subject to a reduced benefit decision. This differs slightly to the definition of a new scheme clearance (see below) and figures from the two schemes will therefore only be broadly, and not directly, comparable.
	2. A new scheme application is defined as cleared if the case is closed or a maintenance assessment has been carried out and a maintenance collection schedule set up. In addition, an application is also counted as cleared if the parent with care (PWC) is identified as claiming good cause, or the PWC is subject to a reduced benefit decision, or is identified as being a change of circumstance to an existing application, as opposed to a new one.
	3. The figure for "other" clearances on the old scheme (July 2001 to March 2003) includes those cases cleared because the PWC has been identified as claiming good cause, or the case has been closed, or the case has been cleared for any other reason. It is not possible to identify figures for good cause separately.
	4. The figure for "other" clearances on the new scheme (April to December 2005) includes those cases cleared because the case has been closed, or the application has been identified as a change of circumstance to an existing application.
	5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, and percentages to the nearest 1 per cent. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Incapacity Benefit

Stephen Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people with a learning disability claimed incapacity benefits in each year since 1997.

Anne McGuire: The information is not available in the format requested.
	Figures for those incapacity benefit (IB) and severe disablement allowance (SDA) claimants with a primary diagnosis within the diagnoses groups that include learning difficulties are in the table.
	
		Incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance claimants in Great Britain, by certain diagnoses
		
			  Pervasive development disorders Specific development disorders of scholastic skills 
		
		
			 August   
			 1997 100 12,000 
			 1998 300 17,400 
			 1999 600 21,100 
			 2000 800 25,000 
			 2001 1,100 28,700 
			 2002 1,400 31,800 
			 2003 1,700 35,100 
			 2004 2,200 38,800 
			 2005 2,700 42,400 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures for the years 1997 to 1998 have been produced using the 5 per cent. data and have been rated up proportionally using the Great Britain WPLS 100 per cent. IB/SDA totals.
	2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.
	3. "Claimant" figures include all IB and SDA (including IB credits only cases).
	4. All diagnoses are coded using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, published by the World Health Organisation.
	Source:
	DWP Information Directorate, 5 per cent. Samples from 1997 to 1998 and Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study 100 per cent. data thereafter.

Alzheimer's Disease

Howard Stoate: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the (a) safety and (b) efficacy of memantine for use with moderately severe to severe Alzheimer's disease patients; and if she will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: Memantine was approved for marketing throughout the European Community in May 2002 under the brand names Axura and Ebixa for the treatment of patients with moderately severe to sever Alzheimer's disease. This regulatory approval was based on evidence of satisfactory product quality, safety and efficacy and that the benefit/risk profile of the product was favourable when treating this disease.
	The approval process was carried out by teams of experts within the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products under a community regulatory procedure and lead by experts from Spain and Portugal.
	Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on memantine and other drugs for treating Alzheimer's disease is expected to be issued later this year.

Alzheimer's Disease

Howard Stoate: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the method of measuring quality of life undertaken by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for patients with Alzheimer's disease is based on a scale that has been validated for use in people with dementia.

Jane Kennedy: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) uses a standardised and validated generic (non-disease specific) method for its technology appraisals in order to make direct comparisons between outcomes of various treatments for patients with different health problems.
	The methods NICE follows for developing its guidance are set out in its "Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisals", and consults regularly on these methods with stakeholders including organisations representing health care professionals and patients. The guidance is available on NICE'S website at www.nice.org.uk.

Audiologists

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS audiologists there are in Bedfordshire; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: The number of medical and non-medical staff as at 30 September 2004, the latest data available, within the audiological medicine speciality within Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority (SHA), by organisation is shown in the following table.
	
		Hospital, public health medicine and community health services: Qualified audiology non-medical staff and medical staff within the audiological medicine specialty within Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA by organisation. As at 30 September 2004 Number (headcount)
		
			of which: 
			  Qualified non-medical staff All medical staff Associate specialist Consultant staff grade 
		
		
			 Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire 30 3 2 1 
			 of which: 
			  
			 Bedford hospitals 
			 National health service trust 5 0 0 0 
			 East and North Hertfordshire NHS trust 13 2 2 0 
			 Hertfordshire Partnership NHS trust 1 1 0 1 
			 Luton and Dunstable hospital NHS trust 3 0 0 0 
			 Luton primary care trust 3 0 0 0 
			 West Hertfordshire hospitals NHS trust 5 0 0 0 
		
	
	Sources :
	NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre Non-Medical Workforce Census 2004
	NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre Medical and Dental Workforce Census

Cadaveric Donations

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cadaveric donations of organs there were in England in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and what the refusal rate was of families asked if they would permit cadaveric donation in each year.

Rosie Winterton: The number of cadaveric donors who have donated organs in the last 10 years is shown in the table.
	
		Deceased organ donors in England, 1996–2005
		
			  Donors 
		
		
			 1996 668 
			 1997 689 
			 1998 620 
			 1999 617 
			 2000 653 
			 2001 640 
			 2002 652 
			 2003 599 
			 2004 683 
			 2005 633 
		
	
	UK Transplant's national potential donor audit began in January 2003, as part of a series of measures to improve organ donation. All patients for whom death was diagnosed following brain stem tests can be identified. The reasons why potential donors did not become actual solid organ donors can then be investigated. Validated data from 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2004 shows that 40 per cent. of the 2,051 families who were approached did not give their consent for heartbeating solid organ donation.

Defibrillators

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her opinion piece in The Independent on 19 January, what the evidential basis is for her statement that 681 defibrillators have saved 68 lives so far; when the defibrillators began to be installed in railway stations and airports; at what cost the defibrillators were installed; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: In July 1999, the White Paper, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" announced the Government's intention to invest £1 million in installing automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) in busy public places such as railway stations, airports, coach stations and ferry ports. A further £1 million was then committed to training people employed at the site in their use and in basic life support.
	In April 2000, the Metro Centre shopping complex was the first public place in which AEDs were installed. Nine further public places (sites) received AEDs, completing the pilot phase of the programme and in November 2002, phase one of the programme was completed. This resulted in 110 sites receiving 681 AEDs and over 6,050 people receiving training in basic life support skills and the use of an AED. These AEDs were mainstreamed to the national health service as of 1 February 2005.
	Evidence suggests that 71 lives have been saved as a result of the programme. This information is derived from stakeholders; sites report incident activity to the manager of the national defibrillator programme within 48 hours. On notification from a site or the Department, the manufacturers download data from the AED and forward to the Department within 72 hours. The manager then liaises with ambulance trusts and receiving hospitals, as the download data can be used for diagnosis and follow up treatment if the resuscitation has been successful. Patient confidentiality precludes the Department from insisting on identification and outcomes of the patients so the actual survival rates could be much higher.

Dentistry

Geoffrey Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 14 December 2005, Official Report, column 2139W, on dentistry, if she will provide a breakdown of the new NHS dentists by nationality.

Rosie Winterton: holding answer 25 January 2006
	Data on dentists' nationality is not held centrally. The table provides information on the numbers of complete new entrant general dental services (GDS) and personal dental services (PDS) dentists, who have joined the GDS or PDS in England, by country of qualification as at 30 September each year.
	
		
			 Country 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
		
		
			 Australia 39 25 31 18 12 
			 Belgium 6 3 1 2 5 
			 Czech Republic 0 0 0 0 6 
			 Denmark 20 14 16 12 10 
			 Finland 5 8 13 1 3 
			 France 4 1 5 0 4 
			 Germany 15 17 24 37 68 
			 Greece 19 26 37 52 81 
			 Hong Kong 0 1 0 0 3 
			 Iceland 0 0 0 0 1 
			 Ireland 36 44 49 41 38 
			 Italy 5 7 5 11 17 
			 Latvia 0 0 0 0 6 
			 Malaysia 6 4 5 12 7 
			 Malta 0 0 0 0 5 
			 Netherlands 0 1 1 4 0 
			 New Zealand 32 18 15 12 15 
			 Norway 8 3 3 2 3 
			 Poland 0 0 0 5 312 
			 Portugal 1 1 2 14 46 
			 South Africa 123 146 94 92 50 
			 Spain 0 5 11 34 65 
			 Sweden 121 79 67 72 64 
			 United Kingdom 1,271 1,110 1,065 1,096 1,063 
			 Unknown(22) 41 36 65 102 260 
		
	
	(22) Unknown dentists include dentists whose status is shown as awaiting entry or statutory exams. Awaiting entry means the dentist did not identify his or her country of qualification when requesting the opening of a new contract. Generally, these are replaced with the genuine country of qualification within weeks. Statutory exam indicates the exam taken by dentists whose home qualification is not recognised by the UK. By its nature, it does not specify a country of qualification but confirms that it is different from all country-specific qualifications.
	Notes:
	1. Complete new entrant means the dentist had an open GDS or PDS contract in September of the specified year but no GDS or PDS contract in September of the previous year.
	2. Data includes all notifications, received by the Dental Practice Board, up to 3 November 2005. Figures for the numbers of dentists at specified dates may vary depending upon the notification period, for example, data with a later notification period will include more recent notifications of dentists leaving the GDS or PDS.
	Source:
	Dental Practice Board

Dentistry

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has met the British Dental Association over the past six months to discuss the NHS Dental Contracts.

Rosie Winterton: I met with the British Dental Association, on 14 February 2006 to discuss the new contracts.

Dentistry

Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 9 November 2005, Official Report, columns 17–18WS, on national health service dentistry, what the headcount figure is for dentists which results in the figure of 622 whole-time equivalents.

Rosie Winterton: The information requested is not available as the data was not collected in this format.

Doctors (Suspensions)

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors have been suspended for six months or more in each quarter since April 2001; and what estimate she has made of the cost to the NHS of suspensions of doctors in the last full year for which figures are available.

Jane Kennedy: Departmental figures show that, from 2000, approximately 30 doctors were suspended at any one time for six months or more. National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS) figures show that for the first three quarters of 2004, 21 doctors were excluded at any one time, and 19 in quarter four. Long-term suspensions—doctors or dentists formally excluded from work for six months or more—have reduced by almost half to about 20 at any one time in 2004. The figures for 2005 will be published by NCAS in the spring. Data on the cost of exclusions is not collected centrally. The National Audit Office in their report, "The Management of Suspensions of Clinical Staff in NHS Hospital and Ambulance Trusts in England", estimated that the average cost of excluding a doctor was £188,000.

Health Reform in England; Update and Next Steps

Michael Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, in the proposed NHS reforms outlined in "Health Reform in England; update and next steps" she intends that treatment for a terminally ill patient will be supported by the tariff to be used to enable the system of payment by results regardless of how quickly or slowly the patient's health deteriorates.

Rosie Winterton: Payment by results is a prospective payment system whereby providers are funded according to the number and complexity of cases treated and on the basis of a national tariff. However, in 2006, payment by results only applies to acute hospital services provided by national health service trusts and foundation trusts. Local commissioning arrangements continue to apply to services outside the scope of payment by results, including palliative care.

Hospital-acquired Infections

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total research budget for developing research into medicines and treatment for (a) MRSA and (b) other hospital acquired infections, in each of the past 10 years.

Jane Kennedy: The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body funded by the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. Much of the funding for new drug development is provided by the pharmaceutical industry.
	The MRC funds a considerable programme of research that underpins scientific understanding of hospital acquired infections including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other antibiotic resistant pathogens. Within this portfolio there are currently no studies exclusive to MRSA.
	The Department has for some years recognised the importance of the control of hospital acquired infection, and the threat to public health posed by the increase in antimicrobial resistance. As part of a wide-ranging approach to these issues, the Department set up an advisory group to identify research priorities in 1999. The group's report, published in 2001, made recommendations for future research that led to a research programme that is currently underway.
	In 2003, the Department published "Winning Ways—working together to reduce healthcare associated infection in England", a report that laid out a strategic approach to dealing with health care associated infections, including recommendations for further research. The report placed particular emphasis on activity aimed at preventing the occurrence and spread of infection.
	Currently available expenditure figures on MRC and Department's policy research programme research into hospital acquired infections are shown in the following table.
	
		
			   £ million 
			  Department of Health  MRC 
		
		
			 1995–96 0.040 0.481 
			 1996–97 0.130 0.331 
			 1997–98 0.160 0.226 
			 1998–99 0.255 0.483 
			 1999–2000 0.190 0.262 
			 2000–01 0.030 1.6 
			 2001–02 0.020 1.7 
			 2002–03 0.130 0.898 
			 2003–04 0.160 0.767

Mammography Screening

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the availability of mammography screening for younger women in (a) Peterborough and (b) Cambridgeshire.

Rosie Winterton: Primary care trusts are responsible for commissioning health services to meet the needs of the local population.
	The Forrest report, on which the national health service breast screening programme is based, recommended further research to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of screening women under 50. This research, "the Age Trial", began in 1990 and is nearing completion; and full results are expected later in 2006.

Sentinel Computer System

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of implementing the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency's Sentinel IT system; and what assessment she has made of the impact of Sentinel on the time spent by assessors on simple applications for marketing authorisations.

Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total costs have been of implementing MHRA's Sentinel computer system; how many and what proportion of each type of application it is being used for; what assessment she has made of how it has affected the time spent to authorise and approve single applications; and if she will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: holding answer 27 February 2006
	The Medical Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's (MHRA) Sentinel programme, began in 2002 following formal Government procurement processes. The expected life of the programme is 10 years and to date has cost around £19 million which incorporates enhancements to the scope of the original programme. The MHRA is currently using Sentinel to handle all applications for marketing authorisations and variations, for clinical trial certificates and for import and export licences, as well as a range of internal corporate functions, and will soon extend Sentinel to pharmacovigilence, including new capabilities for signal generation.
	Recently assessment approval times have lengthened, mainly due to delays in validating applications, and assessment targets are not being met in a proportion of cases although urgent cases are being processed promptly. Some technical problems were encountered when parts of the Sentinel programme were implemented, which is not unusual for a project of this complexity, but those have been or are being resolved. Positive improvements have already been achieved and more are forecast. Sentinel's development is founded in its ability to handle electronic submissions and as industry increases its use of the external portal for this purpose, the workflow will be further streamlined.
	Sentinel completely revolutionises the MHRA's approach to information management and processing and will put the them in a leading position in its ability to handle electronic submissions, attract revenues from within and outside the United Kingdom and to remain a centre of excellence for medicines regulation. It will enable improved access to information to assist in the protection of public health and provide a better service to all its stakeholders.

Electoral Systems

Edward Davey: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what work is being undertaken to review electoral systems within the UK.

Bridget Prentice: I refer the honourable Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 16 January 2006, Official Report, column 1054W. The Government's internal review is desk based, examining a range of existing publications and materials. These include, for example, the reports of the Independent Commission on the Voting Systems ("the Jenkins report"), the Independent Commission on Proportional Representation (ICPR), and the Arbuthnott Commission's report on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems.

Legal Services Commisson

Vincent Cable: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment she has made of the Legal Services Commission decision to cease funding specialist support and legal advice in complex cases; and if she will make a statement.

Bridget Prentice: Specialist support services form part of the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) special projects budget. Research undertaken by the LSC which underpins their consultation paper "Making legal rights a reality" points to an increasing demand for front line advice for the most needy.
	Given the pressure on the limited legal aid budget and the number of clients needing legal advice, the LSC has concluded that the £2.3 million will be redirected to fund direct legal advice in the next financial year. This will increase access to legal aid services for vulnerable people.

Solicitors (Sanctions)

John Mann: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if she will seek to legislate to penalise solicitors who refuse to abide by Law Society adjudication decisions.

Bridget Prentice: The power to penalise a solicitor who refuses to abide by a Law Society adjudication decision is provided for under existing legislation. If a solicitor fails to comply with an Adjudication Panel decision the Law Society has the power to institute disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) on that basis. Under the Solicitors Act 1974 the Tribunal has the power to:
	strike a solicitor off the roll;
	suspend a solicitor for a fixed or indefinite period;
	reprimand a solicitor;
	fine a solicitor (fines are payable to HM Treasury);
	ban a solicitor's employee from working in a law practice without the consent of the Law Society (under s43 Solicitors Act 1974); and
	if the Law Society has awarded compensation, the SDT can make that award enforceable as a High Court order.
	The question of enforcement of awards will be taken into account when consideration is given to the proposed complaints handling procedures set out in the Government's White Paper, "The Future of Legal Services: Putting Consumers First": published October 2005.

Casinos

Malcolm Moss: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to change the planning class order on casinos from D2 to sui generis; and over what time scale.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The "Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987" was amended by the "Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006" (S.I. 2006/220). The amending Order removes use as a casino from Class D2 of the 1987 Order, which relates to assembly and leisure. It also makes use as a casino sui generis. The amending order was made on 23 January 2006 and will come into force on 6 April 2006.

Correspondence

David Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Parliamentary Under Secretary, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will reply to the letters of (a) 7 and 11 November 2005 and (b) 7 December 2005 from the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge.

Ian Pearson: My noble Friend, the Foreign and Commonwealth Parliamentary Under-Secretary, The Lord Triesman of Tottenham, replied to my hon. Friend's letters of 2 and 11 November and 7 December on 16 December 2005.

Extraditions

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extraditions the Government have (a) requested and (b) granted in each of the last seven years.

Andy Burnham: The information requested is as follows:
	
		
			  Extraditions requested Extraditions granted(24) 
		
		
			 1999 56 38 
			 2000 70 47 
			 2001 82 55 
			 2002 70 53 
			 2003 87 55 
			 2004(25) 33 50 
			 2005(25) 31 62 
		
	
	(24) The term "granted" has been taken to apply to cases in which extradition has actually taken place.
	(25) The above figures exclude extraditions requested or granted under Part one or Part three of the Extradition Act 2003, which implemented the European Arrest Warrant system on one January 2004. They also exclude extraditions requested or granted to the Republic of Ireland, prior to one January 2004. In all of those cases extraditions have been requested or ordered by judicial authorities rather than by the Government.
	Note:
	The figures do not include requests made or granted by Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have devolved powers to make or grant requests.

Identity Cards

Adam Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether radio frequency technology will be used in identity cards.

Andy Burnham: It is currently planned that the ID card will be valid for travel within the EEA. As a result, they must comply with standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a branch of the UN. These standards stipulate that a travel document such as an identity card will need to have a "proximity" chip, which will use radio frequencies to allow the card to be read at very short distances, approximately 0 cm-2 cm from a reader. Thus, one specific kind of radio frequency technology will be used in the "proximity" chip in the identity card in line with their introduction into passports in many countries in the coming years.
	However, the use of radio frequencies in the identity card should not be confused with other uses of radio frequencies in many different technologies, such as RFID tags. While both use radio frequencies, they use different operating systems, access controls and security requirements. For example, proximity chips include a far higher level of security protection than an RFID tag and can only be read at a very short distance. These differences are reflected in the fact that they operate to different standards set by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).
	Furthermore, proximity chips in the identity card will utilise Basic Access Control as a data access protocol in accordance with international standards as well as other cryptographic measures in order to prevent the information on the chip from being modified. In addition, it is planned that further advanced encryption will be utilised to secure biometric information on the chip of the card. This will comply with Extended Access Control standards that are currently under development at an international level.